But this was not confidential, it was in the public domain. In fact, it was broadcast over the Internet at a Judiciary Committee hearing on Saad's nomination in June, 2004. Via Roll Call, 6/7/04 (Available on Lexis.com):

Is This Thing On?
The Senate Judiciary Committee is embarrassed -again.

Fingers are still being pointed over who is responsible for leaving the live Web audio feed on during Thursday's confidential, closed-door session to consider controversial judicial nominee Henry Saad of Michigan.

Senators were deep into their private meeting, raising and answering questions about the contents of Saad's FBI background check when the alarming call came that the entire private session was being streamed live on C-SPAN's audio Web site.

Senate security officials are conducting an investigation into "the sequence of events that led to the unauthorized audio broadcast" of the closed session, according to a Judiciary Committee aide. All they know at this point, the aide said, is that the committee's practice of not broadcasting executive business meetings "was not followed."

Brad McGuire, the content manager of C-SPAN.org, explained that all of the Senate committee rooms are wired to stream audio. "If the feed is on, it streams through the Web site live," he said. It's up to the committee to turn off the feed during private sessions, McGuire said.

True, indeed, a GOP Judiciary Committee aide confirmed.

On June 17, 2004, the Detroit Free Press reported (available on Lexis.com):

Last week, Hatch postponed a committee vote on Saad's nomination after a closed-door hearing at which Stabenow and Levin objected to Saad because of information uncovered during a routine FBI background check. No details were revealed. The judges have been waiting roughly two years.

Senator Hatch referred to the information coming out in his floor statement of July 23, 2004 supporting Saad's nomination: [US Fed News July 21, 2004, available on Lexis.com]

I hope that our consideration of Judge Saad's nomination is not overshadowed by collateral arguments about the propriety of his nomination, the committee blue slip process, an attack on his personal character and qualifications, or other diversionary arguments. The question before the Senate is the qualifications of Judge Saad to sit on the federal bench.

Well, it's apparently quite true that there is some objectionable personal stuff in Saad's FBI file. You're not going to find out what that stuff is in the media or even on the internet, and won't unless and until Saad waives confidentiality. Meanwhile, the Rs get to bash the Ds for supposedly having no legitimate reason to oppose Saad's appointment.
I regularly practice in front of Saad, and he's an awful judge, ill-tempered and ignorant of basic legal principles. I felt that way about him back when my practice was insurance defense work, too.

Well, I guess if it's in the public domain, Saad should be able to get an exception to the rules which deny him access to the file, right?
Because then he would know what Reid was referring to and could defend himself, right?
And you defense attorneys are always biased on the side of defending oneself, especially against charges that might not be true, right?
You should have left this one alone.
How fast can you dance?

"Saad should be able to get an exception to the rules which deny him access to the file, right?
Because then he would know what Reid was referring to and could defend himself, right?"
You honestly think Saad doesn't know?
You should note that this stuff is probably a longstanding issue--Bush I nominated Saad to the 6th Circuit back in '92, but the nomination died in committee.

Wow, you mean that anyone who gets classified material and publishes it immediately makes it public domain? Does that work for any content? Can I republish everything I find on this site somewhere else and then call it public domain as well? How about books or papers - if I plagiarize those do I put them in the public domain?

"Wow, you mean that anyone who gets classified material and publishes it immediately makes it public domain? Does that work for any content?"
Well, the objection made by the right to Reid's comments is not that he violated the FBI's copyright.
Stuff that gets published in the newspaparers no longer qualifes as secret.

Rea has it right. "Not confidential" because it is in the public domain is not a legal term - it's a practical term - once it's out, it's out. Just like you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, you can't unring a bell, etc.
Reid did nothing to cause it to enter the public domain. Once it's there, it's there.

Okay, "Senators were deep into their private meeting......being streamed live on C-SPAN's audio Web site."
Now I see that as meaning that "part" of whatever the file had in it had been broadcast. Not all, and probably only questions/answers/statements.
Next, I read DavidNYC's comment, and follow the link, which tells me that this happened last year.
Now the post says "The Senate Judiciary Committee is embarrassed -again."
Does this mean it has happened twice?
Or does it refer to generic embarassment?
But no place in there do I find any content of what the report actually said.
Sorry folks, this guy may be the world's worst, but I'd have to say this just looks like a smear job by Reid and the Demos.

TalkLeft I think your wrong. Practically there is a difference between public domain and confidential. The person(s) who release confidential info are still subject to sanction as are the receivers. Information in the public domain incurs no penalty for use or transmission. Guess its all the Left has left. Disclose confidential information in a non specific charge. Yep that about fits what left in their tank.

Let me say one thing about classification here.
I work with classified documents. The rule is that they cannot be released until either the controling agency approves the release, or the "timestamp" on the document runs out (this can be extended if the controlling agency can prove the information is still dangerous).
Thus, it does not matter that the information was in the public domain - as a government agent, Senator Reid shouldn't have disclosed it (actually, the Senators who were allowed lawful access shouldn't have shown it to him).
That being said, I don't think anything can be done - from a pratical standpoint, what's done is done. The info in Saad's document may or may not be hearsay - the best thing all around now would be to get Saad's and the FBI's authority to release the info to the entire Senate, if not into the public domain.

the article cited says nothing about "the problem" in the report. It is pretty simple: Reid says something is wrong in a file which he has no access to and is confidential. There is no way to refute the comment or explain it as the nominee has no access to the file. If there were something specific, the senator should have the guts to spill it. He's violated the rules but doesn't have the courage to back his words.

Reid says something is wrong in a file which he has no access to and is confidential. There is no way to refute the comment or explain it as the nominee has no access to the file. If there were something specific, the senator should have the guts to spill it.

Why you think the nominee doeswn't know what the problem is in his file is a mystery to me. The existance of the problem in the file has been reported in the media, and is therefore no longer secret. Why you think Reid doesn't know what's in the file, either, is a mystery.
And I guess the new Republican line on this is that Reid is at fault, not for violating confidentiality, but for honoring it.

if this is how you feel confidentiality is honored, heaven help your clients. the facts before us are: an unspecified "problem" in a file which neither the senator nor the candidate have access to. the file is confidential. Yet, you say the candidate must know what the problem is. there is no logic to the reasoning. Let us assume you are correct though. it is still a confidential file. if Saad knows what the problem is, that is not license for Reid to leak.

an unspecified "problem" in a file which neither the senator nor the candidate have access to. the file is confidential. Yet, you say the candidate must know what the problem is. there is no logic to the reasoning. Let us assume you are correct though. it is still a confidential file. if Saad knows what the problem is, that is not license for Reid to leak.

Saad and Reid probably know what was in the file, becasue careless Republican staffers allowed the contents of the file to be broadcast over the internet. Reid didn't leak anything--he said something that had already been reported, for example, in the Washington Times.
Not to mention--claiming that Saad doesn't know what's the problem amounts to claiming that the "problem" is a false report to the FBI. If Saad did something wrong, he ought to know about it.

Let me put it this way, Ed--if somebody told me that an FBI background check raised some serious issues about my suitability for an appointment to the bench, I would certainly have a pretty good idea of what those issues might be . . .

another non-answer. if Saad knows, this does not grant license to leak from a confidential report. again, heaven help your clients given this view of confidentiality. "Officer, my client Joe just told me he did something awful. I can't tell you what, though"

"if Saad knows, this does not grant license to leak from a confidential report."
Nothing was leaked from a confidential report--Reid said nothing that hadn't already been in the papers.
Perhaps a more productive use of your time would be seeing that Steven Spielberg gets prosecuted for leaking our secret plan to invade Normandy in "Saving Private Ryan"?

You have got to love CSPAN. I saw him make this remark last night while I was fixing up dinner. While I was unaware of the impropriety of the remark, another caught my attention. Reid listed a number of judicial nominees that would have been confirmed simply on merit if it hadn’t been for the poor treatment of Clinton nominees. I couldn’t believe my ears; the man was acknowledging retaliation and a continuing vendetta. I’m not naive; of course this is typical of politics. However, to admit on the senate floor, in a live nationally televised broadcast, that qualified judicial appointments were passed simply for spite isn’t the kind of candor I expect from any politician. Surprising, I thought I was too cynical; live and learn.

finally an answer, albeit a poor one. it wasn't a leak, even though I indicate I know the contents of the report and what nefarious things are in there about Judge Saad. I was joking with my confidentiality scenario. Apparently, you took it to be a proper course.

Why is this generating so much discussion and heat?
This seems like pretty ordinary political gaming. Party A employs Tactic X, Party B says its unfair, Party A says it is. Happens all the time. Usually there aren't three front-page posts on Daily Kos or 20 comments in 5 hours here.
I'm just curious, not complaining.

“The alternative to retaliation, of course, is to accept the principle that … “
Or play clean and fair, publicize the dirty underhanded politics of your opponent, and let Americans decide what kind of leadership they want. Lay down with dogs …

rea and TL, you two know way more about the law than I ever will, so I am willing to bow to your superior knowledge, but…
It is my understanding that secret information does not lose that classification, just because that information is exposed. In other words, an FBI agent would be punished for saying the same thing Reid said.
During the Vietnam War, the B-52s left from the island of Guam. The number of bombers that went out together on a bombing run was secret information. You could stand practically anyplace on Guam, look up and count the number of B-52s. A daily columnist for the Guam Daily News wrote a column on the sillyness of keeping this number secret and “reported” the number in his column. Yet after all this, when a military spokesman mentioned the number, he was punished.
I know military law doesn’t apply in this case, but I think the civilian rules for secret information are very similar.
Where am I going wrong?

Not of fan of Republican judges but I consider it a positive that he has something negative in his FBI file. Since when is someone's FBI file relevant to anything meaningful. I hear MLK's file was pretty thick.
B

rea - My comment was that by making derogatory comments about the file, the honorable Senator from the great state of Nevada is smearing Saad. If Reid has a specific charge, why doesn't he demand the nomonation be brought to the floor where he can make it to Saad's face?
BTW - I note you follow the Senator's lead, and smear the staffers.
BTW - You write - "Why you think the nominee doeswn't know what the problem is in his file is a mystery to me."
If you have ever been investigated for any type of security clearance, job, etc., you must know that you don't see the file. You must also know that the information is raw interviews from people, unvetted, and unconfirmed. Perfect place for a little payback, opinon mouthing, etc.
Soldier - Quit applying common sense for heaven's sake.

When this type of investigation is done everything that anyone says, whether true or not, is included. If the F.B.I. finds eveidence of a crime then they investigate and they prosecute if appropiate. Saad has no access to the file. If someone who had a grudge told a lie about Saad he would never see it and since it is a lie he obviously would not be aware of something he did not do. He can't have the report released because that would hinder future investigations. if someone thought that there true allegations about a person in power would be released they would be less likely to be honest out of fear of retaliation.So Saad does not have the option to have the report released and Reid knows it. This allows Reid to make charges that Saad has no way to refute and Reid doesn't have to back up with evidence. And of course Reid, unless he was told more by someone who was breaking the law by telling him, should only know about the portion that was discussed by accident. So if he wanted to bring up the portion that was released on accident and use that charge as the basis of his objections that would be kosher. Instead calls Saad unfit without giving specifics and thus Saad has no way to respond. This is McCarthy tactics. Call someone a commie, just refer vaguelly to "reports" without giving specifics, and then hide behind the law to say he can't give specifics.He didn't refer to the items that were printed already. He refered to a file that he hasn't read,unless of course he broke the law. Slimey to the extreme.

DA - FOIA? I'm LOL. By the time he got it no one would care what it said.
You are really reacing.
What Reid did was repeat a rumor. That is bad when a teenager does it about another teenager.
It is terrible when a United States Senator, leader of the Minority Party, does it.
The Demos are embarassing themselves daily.

PPJ
"I don't think information in an F.B.I. file, which is a written document can qualify as a rumour"
Wrong. The info in this type of a file contains everything, all the raw data collected. If one was done on you, and lets say someone who hates your guts decides to say, Oh yeah, that P.P.J. is a drunk and he has a problem with shoplifting, even if it was a complete lie,which I am sure it would be, would be included in the file. The File on Saad contains everything that was said by anyone who was contacted. This is not just a summary of the investigation, it is the complete raw data. The fact that it is written on "paper" does not make it true or false.Your suggestion that because it is written down it must be true is either a sign of ignorance or a desire to mislead.

If our Senators need an FBI report to make an informed decision on which way to vote for judicial nominees, then shouldn’t we citizens, get to see an FBI report on each candidate for President, before we vote?

Kevin P - You are referencing a reply to me from DA.
"I don't think information in an FBI file, which is a written document, can qualify as a rumor." was DA's.
DA - Typical parsing after being caught out. Maybe Reid should just stick with telling high school students that Bush is a loser.

I am rather suprized that there are those on the Left that would defend Reid's slander.
Is this the same Left that screams McCarthyism at the drop of a hat?
So Harry Reid has said he has seen a file that says bad things about Saad and its bad, really bad. But of course he won't tell us what it is but trust him... IT IS REALLY BAD!
Yeah this is right from ol' drunken Joe McCarthy's playbook. Now I'm just waiting for Reid to start screaming, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of......"
Between his Bush is a "loser" remark to school kids and subsequent suck up behind the scenes apololgy and his McCarthy-like innuendo against Saad I'm not sure he could get much lower.
The Dems seem to be at thier nadir at this point but who knows I guess they could get lower.
But then he is a politician and so only heaven knows how low he can go.

The hypocrites are out in full strength. Of course these same people were no where to be found when Plame was outed or when Delay, Frist and Bush lie through their teeth. They have their panties in an uproar about something so minor yet have no problem with the fact that Bush lies us into this war. So the hypocritical right wing noise machine grinds on spouting their self rightous crapola. Nothing changes.

No hypocracy here SCD I was just wondering what was with Reid's McCarthyesque innuendo. Kind of unseemly coming from the side of the aisle that is so quick to accuse the otherside of being McCarthy-like.
Why didn't he come out and say what he knows? Does he really know anything or is this just a random smear?
I was around for the Plame affair and it seemed to me to be a pre-publicity stunt to promote Joe Wilson's book. It worked pretty well as he was everywhere for the next month including a two-page picture spread of him and his wife Valerie Plame.
As for Delay it now seems that there were plenty of people on both sides of the aisle that were taking bribes from lobby That doesn't make it right but it does expose a certain hypocracy in those who choose to attack Delay while at the same time ignoring the same behavior by their own party or in some cases by themselves.
I'm not sure which "lies" you are assigning to Frist but I have heard your recitation of dubious to "lies" on the part of Bush.
By the way, If people on this site had ever seen the information I have seen about Soccerdad...well, no one would ever read one of his posts again.
I mean its really, really bad but I can't tell you what it is but you can just trust me...
Hypocracy indeed.

SD - Long time no see. How ya doing?
Actually, the Left is using the Plame excuse - everyone knew she was CIA so no harm no foul. I think you complained bitterly about that...
Oh well, nothing changes.
BTW - That is "panties in a wad." Not "uproard."

By the way, If people on this site had ever seen the information I have seen about Soccerdad...well, no one would ever read one of his posts again.
What is this supposed to mean? a vague threat? Are you that narrow that you must resort to personal attacks? Pretty low Jimcee.

everyone knew she was CIA so no harm no foul
wait a minute in a thread earlier you were arguing that rules are rules and even if they dont harm anyone soldiers and officials who break the rules must be punished. so which is it?

DA - No, I did not use the Plame excuse. I pointed out that there is no difference in what you are doing and what the Right did. Excusing saying something based on the fact that "everybody" knows.
But actually, Reid's actions are worse. Plame was undoubtedly outed earlier by Soviet spies within the CIA, and was then in analysis rather than active intelligence work. So hetrsecurity wasn't harmed and her career path was harmed.
Saad's situation is different. Harry Reid is referring to something that in reality is just a collection of unvetted information, and probably, if we are to judge from the Bolton attacks, is someone complaining because the Judge didn't say good morning.
And I note you don't try to defend Reid's calling Bush a loser to a bunch of high school students, you just agree.
Reid's actions match his Saad's actions. He has no class, and the citizems of Nevada should be thorough embarassed. That the Demos will retain him as Minority Leader speakes volumes about them.
And since you pull a Harry Reid, referring to something someplace else thinking I can't respond because it is off subject, let me summarize for us my position on the church flap.
1. Sothern Baptists regularly split and form new churches for a variety of reasons.
2. That is their business.
3. If the church violates the law, anyone is welcome to call the IRS.
4. I note that those complaining about this church's minister supporting Bush from the pulpit say nothing about this practice when done predominatly black churches supporting Democrats.
5. I consider that hypocritical.
Is the above plain enough?

Plame was undoubtedly outed earlier by Soviet spies within the CIA, and was then in analysis rather than active intelligence work

Proof please. Worldnet, coulter etc don't count
PPJ you remain the clown of this show. Only you could spin this non issue to to be worse than the Plame affair. And of course you lie to do it but nothing changes
You remain a man without morals, (although you do your best to portray yourself other wise, but the transparent hypocrisy always does you in) and a blatant apologist for the administration.
Where's your outrage over the Blair memos

“… you remain the clown of this show … of course you lie … you remain a man without morals …”
I see hockydad has joined the fray. What say you put that vindictive little man back in his shoebox and come with substance in place of insults.

soccerdad writes: “Proof please…”
PPJ would love to provide you with proof, but it just so happens that the proof is only in a confidential FBI report. For details see the Honorable Senator Harry Reid.
Sorry to be insulting, but making claims and not providing the proof, is exactly what this thread is about. You are asking more from PPJ than you are from Harry Reid.

Soldier...don't you read the news? Reid didn't reveal anything that wasn't already public knowledge, whether he did it by accident or not...it doesn't matter 'cause he wasn't the one to bring it to the public...what part of this don't you understand?

Blaghdaddy,
The problem isn't that I haven't read the news. It is that you haven't read this thread. If you had, then you would know that I answered your question yesterday, when I wrote:
It is my understanding that secret information does not lose that classification, just because that information is exposed. In other words, an FBI agent would be punished for saying the same thing Reid said.
But don't believe me. Simply call the FBI and ask them to confirm or deny that there is negative information in Saad's FBI report.
Let us know what they tell you.

soldier exactly what secret did Reid divulge? That there was a file? Every prospective candidate for a judgeship has a file. That there was a problem with it? That had been divulged at least 4 times. Reid provided no additional detail than what had already been in the public domain. The contents of the file remain secret and as yet undisclosed. Reid is not in the military so that analogy doesn't hold. Why don't you go manufacture something a little more substantial, like say the Plame affair or say the lies that led to this war. Or is your perspective that far out of wack?

DA seems not to understand irony but it is odd that he would think it was a threat from me but not Sen Reid. I give you a hint it was a joke. As for soccerdad? He is just one long non-sequitir.
And about those super secret bad, really bad files that no one knows whats in them...isn't that exactly how McCarthy threatened people before Mr Welch finally beat that old drunk to jelly?
So... if any one could see the file I have seen in regards to _______ but you can't because it is secret but trust me its bad.....